The Battle for the No Campaign and a Prime Minister in Peril

By Iain Martin

David Cameron delivers his No to AV speech on Friday. He may now be more keen the campaign wins in May’s referendum. Photograph: Getty

In the summer months, when David Cameron was luxuriating in the afterglow of his Number 10 Rose Garden love-in with Nick Clegg, there was one subject he simply didn’t want mentioned: his failure to win the general election outright. Tories who suggested in the Prime Ministerial presence that a proper inquest into the duff Conservative campaign was required, on the basis that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat their mistakes, were told firmly to pipe down.

This weekend, as the Prime Minister contemplates the serious possibility of defeat in the AV referendum, he may have cause to wish he had listened, learned the lessons from the election and thought ahead. The implications for Cameron if the AV vote on May 5 is lost are potentially extremely serious. His parliamentary party would become almost uncontrollable. A senior Conservative backbencher told me: “I think we’ve lost on AV. I think it’s probably too late to claw it back and I think the consequences for Cameron are going to be much, much worse than he realises”.

This all seemed a long way off back in May. Desperate to clinch a coalition deal and get himself across the threshold of Number 10, Cameron bounced his party into offering the Lib Dems an AV referendum during the hectic negotiations that followed the election. It was intimated to Tory MPs that Labour had offered the Liberals AV without a referendum, an assertion that has not been borne out by examination of the historical record. Cameron said he had no choice but to shift on AV.

Amidst the confusion, and with many Tory MPs harbouring doubts, AV was stitched into the deal. The Lib Dems, even though they saw AV as a miserable compromise in the words of Nick Clegg, were delighted that Cameron had presented them with a chance to kill off the First Past the Post voting system.

In the months that followed, leading Cameroons, flush with the novelty of coalition and the notion of it potentially turning into a permanent partnership, began to flirt with the idea that a Yes vote in the referendum might not be so bad or even a positive development. Behind the scenes the view was that an anti-AV campaign would be fought, but not particularly vehemently.

It was in this spirit that Cameron licensed the No to AV campaign, choosing a Tory donor and City grandee he trusted to organise it. Lord Leach had run the successful campaign against British entry to the single currency. The respected Tory peer could be depended on to do what Cameron desired, which was to fight a mild campaign against AV that did not result in a falling out with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Leach in turn hired Matthew Elliott, who had created the influential Taxpayers Alliance that garnered so many headlines with its campaigns against government waste and excess.

But so far the No campaign has looked confused and rudderless. It seems reluctant to turn the vote into a referendum on the deeply unpopular Nick Clegg. Their launch this week was widely criticised, and the focus on the cost of new voting machines for AV seemed completely beside the point.

The anti-AV campaign is hampered by Number 10′s reluctance for it to focus too heavily on claims that a Yes vote may make hung parliaments more likely, institutionalise backroom deals stitched up between politicians and standardise the abandonment of manifesto promises (on issues such as tuition fees). It is all rather awkward. That is, of course, the basis on which the current coalition exists, following a rare hung election under FPTP. And it is the method by which Cameron’s tenure in Number 10 was secured.

The No campaign’s weakness is all rather reminiscent of the failed Tory general election campaign. Then their message lacked definition and clarity. The Conservative manifesto was a confusing “invitation to join the government” and the Big Society did not seem relevant to voters concerns. Beyond getting rid of Gordon Brown the Tories had little aimed at hard-working apsirational voters worried about tax, crime and opportunity. In sum, it was unclear what Cameron’s Tories were all about.

The result was a failure to beat Gordon Brown outright, no overall majority and a coalition government.

In the last ten days or so it has dawned on many Tory MPs that history may be about to repeat itself in the No campaign. The Yes team is in the lead in polls where the referendum question is put without prompting and, on the current evidence, it looks likely to win.

A defeat for Cameron and the scrapping of the First Past the Post system would likely start a war in the Conservative party. Here’s how a Tory minister explains it: “If it passes then there will be many colleagues who hold their seats with less than 50% of the vote with the Liberals or Labour breathing down their neck who’ll think they will lose their seats under AV. The danger is that they will blame the coalition and deeply resent the person who agreed to a referendum and then lost it. Cameron.

“There is nothing to concentrate the minds of MPs more than the risk of losing your seat, as even Margaret Thatcher found out. Add into that the boundary changes, meaning plenty of Tory MPs will see their existing seats disappear and have to try and get one of the new seats. They will be wanting to prove to constituency associations that they are independent-minded souls and not creatures of Cameron and CCHQ.”

It sounds like a recipe for rebellion and potential parliamentary chaos. It also hasn’t escaped the notice of wilder Tory MPs that AV wouldn’t apply in elections until late 2013 – any election before then, say if the coalition fell, would be under First Past The Post.

Another MP, a moderate, was blunt: “Losing FPTP would be a disaster for the Tory party on a grand scale. Defeat on AV means Cameron would be toast. I think Number 10 has just started to work this out.”

Cameron already has a difficult relationship with important elements of his party. There is unhappiness on the part of some of his party’s big donors, the people who paid the bills for the election campaign which didn’t deliver outright Tory victory. The new intake of Conservative MPs – younger, Thatcherite, presentable and Eurosceptic – is proving unbiddable and rebellious. And Europe is fast rising back up the list of Tory concerns, which helps explain why Cameron tacked in a Eurosceptic direction in his confident PMQs performance on Wednesday on the European Court and ECHR.

The indications are that this weekend Cameron has started to realise the extent of the danger and is fighting for a No vote harder than originally intended. He wrote a piece for The Daily Mail and delivered a punchy speech on Friday, saying he “disagreed with Nick” and painting AV as a confusing system that makes winners out of those who come second or third.

The Tory leader has a history of leaving it late – in exams at school and university, in getting his act together in Blackpool in 2005 to win his party’s leadership, in only really mastering the TV leaders’ debate format in the final of the three encounters during the election, and in not winning the election but securing himself power. Can he pull it off again? After all, he is a “lucky general”.

The Labour board members of the No campaign are stirring. Bruisers such as Lord Prescott and Lord Reid have no incentive to hold back on criticising Nick Clegg in strong terms. The question is whether or not they can wrest control of the direction of the campaign and make it more robust.

But if Cameron has left it too late and the Yes side triumphs, he is in trouble. He risks finding himself isolated, barricaded inside Number 10 with resentful MPs outside. The AV referendum may look like a side-show. It is no such thing. The stakes are very high. If Cameron loses he wouldn’t be the first Conservative Prime Minister in history to find himself suddenly without a party.

Comments (5 of 50)

YES , WE CAN...YES , WE CAN...WE WILL WIN IN WAR ON TERROR (30 whities or what are terrorists will never come back alive...thank you lord....aaamen).

What do you mean tragedy! It was just a birthday present for planet apes president !!! That's all ! Feels great to flip hamburgers and hip hop atop of good news...makes you feel vibrant and energized !!!

ARIZONA = UTOYA = GOVERNMENT‘S "AFTERLIFE" CASH & $$ FLASH MOB (there was no shooting in Utoya or Arizona, but tear gas and theater instead on faces of multiculturalism maniacs..your guilt or blame and shame weapon against us and our families in our own countries atop of forceful unemployment during so called "ECONOMIC CRISES" during which third world foreigners are allowed to rape, kill, and still is nothing else but fast way to early retirements for government related criminals/ terrorists...$$$ extra bonuses, and newly issued state identities while calling you a terrorists) !!!

GOOGLE stateofterror.blogspot.com/ OR stateofterror.wordpress.com/

Whitie is fighting war on terrorism just to come home and be pronounced as terrorist...turned in Timothy, jobless, homeless ...YESSS, WE CAN...YESSS, WE CAN...GABBY OPENED HER EYES (Obaminator’s psychotic speech in Tucson = failed “Apocalypse Now“)

WAKE-UP !!! WAKE UP PEOPLE BEFORE IT GETS ALL TO LATE ON PLANET APES !!! TEARS WON'T DO YOU ANY GOOD !!! AS BUSH STATED "THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE PAID FOR"(to die ) !!

EVEN IF IRAQ WOULD HAVE BEEN WAR FOR OIL ONLY, VETERANS WOULDN'T NEVER EVER HAVE TO BE HOMELESS PEOPLE THE WAY THEY ARE AND NOR WOULD OUR PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE ALLOVER THE PLACE THE WAY THEY DO TO VERY TODAY(never ending “war on terror” story). BECAUSE EVEN IF WAR WAS FOR THE SAKE OF MONEY, MONEY SHOULD BE USED FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS AND NOT WHAT THE CASE IS OR AGAINST WHITES(to destroy us allover the world) !!! You don't really proof for 911, just put your sht together in your heads...THIS IS PLENTY ENOUGH TO HAVE O(B)SAMA INDICTED FOR CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST WHITE AMERICAN HUMANITY TOGETHER WITH HIS ZIONIST MASTERS) !!!

Don't worry O(s)bama, you have just saved USA what is lots of Dollars in your DEBT DEALS as those best of America or Navy Seals would also grew older and then you already know how it goes...DEAD & ILL = DEBT DEAL !!!

HOW MUCH FURTHER ARE WE WILLING TO GO IN ORDER TO PLEASE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO DENY US EVEN THE RIGHT TO EXISTENCE(what is to you country without laws or lawless country in respect to your personal rights, but the one that in contrast to your denied basic human rights recognizes you extremely liable when payments are due) !!?

IS IT INDEPENDENCE THAT WE CELEBRATE OR DEPENDENCE (what are your credit card bills or alimony saying about it) !!? HOW IS YOUR DIABETES AND LOST MARRIAGES !!? FORECLOSURES AND JOB SEARCH !!? THAT IS THE QUESTION TO BE OR NOT TO BE !!! IS IT LAND OF THE FREE OR STATE OF TERROR AGAINST OWN POPULATION !!? IT IS TIME TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT COLOR ARE THE STRIPES ON OUR STAR SPANGLED BANNER !!! TIME TO DETERMINE WHOSE INDEPENDENCE/AMERICA, WE CELEBRATE TODAY(who wants to erase us and denies us the right to exist) !!! IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHOM WE ADDRESS WITH "PRESIDENT" (STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF) !!!

VOTING POLL:

DO WE NEED MORE PROOFS TO INDICT OBAMA AND BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST WHITE HUMANITY !!?

1)NO, THEY ARE CLEARLY GUILTY AS OIL WAR NEVER EVER WAS REAL ISSUE IN GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITES. REAL ISSUE ARE FACTS OR WHAT WE WITNESS TODAY WHEN VETERANS ARE HOMELESS, JOBLESS, KILLED, ETC.

2)NO, AS 911 ALONE AS WELL AS ACTIONS IMPOSED AGAINST WHITES IN USA (as well worldwide) ARE CLEARLY INDICATING ACTS OF GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITE HUMANITY

3)YESS AS JUST YESTERDAY(for over 15 years to very yesterday), WE (news/media = vacuum world of lies) WERE TELLING YOU THAT UNEMPLOYMENT WAS AT 10% WHILE TODAY ONE IS AT 50% (HOW COME NO ONE QUESTION JOURNALISM LIKE THIS OR WHAT IS WORLD OF LIES AND DEMENTIA)!

4)I AGREE WITH FIRST TWO ANSWERS ABOVE. IT IS TIME TO PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS DUE TO ACTS OF GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITE HUMANITY FOR THE SAKE(SAFETY) OF US AND OUR CHILDREN(DO NOT TURN THEM IN WHITE REFUGEES ON PLANET APES OR WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE WHEN VISITING ABOVE PAGES) !!!

8:49 am February 22, 2011

Remittance Man wrote :

duc de montesquieu

Why is the arithmatic and logic missing?

Labour lost on a scale equivalent to anything it experienced in the 1980's and early 90's. (8 million votes and change). The Lib Dems pretty much achieved what their Liberal and SDP progenitors got during the same period. But what did the Tories achieve? Certainly not the 13 million plus votes Mrs T or even John Major routinely managed to win and what they should have gotten given the degree to which NuLabour was hated and the LibDems disregarded. The reality is Dave's Kumbayah Conservatives only managed to secure the votes of a measly 10 million people plus change.

I'll admit to rounding the numbers, but three million isn't a bad estimate for the number of "missing" tory votes, so the arithmatic ain't off.

As for the analysis, well, the 1 million UKIP voters (rounded again, but close) are fact. UKIP didn't exist in the 80's or the nineties, but it's pretty safe to say most of that party's voters are former Tory supporters. As for the other two million? Well, it looks like they voted for Maggie, but not Dave, so where could they have gone? My guess, based on the evidence, is that they have a more starboard, rather than portside, list and couldn't stomach voting for BluLabour. Unable to trust or rate UKIP, it looks like they simply stayed at home.

In other words, Dave's guitar strumming, dippy hippy, kumbayah singing brand of conservatism, if one can call it that, turned off three million voters and cost him the election.

Instead of simply chucking unsupported opinions around, it's now your turn to use evidence and reason to argue your point of view.

6:56 pm February 21, 2011

Anonymous wrote :

Mr Martin, again you give the UK a masterly analysis, the like of which is wholly absent from our news media.
But why should there be one No campaign, where is the twitter, You Tube youth type campaign, costing nothing, getting at Clegg? A few thousand quid could get a Vote No If you don't trust Clegg going viral.

I now do not think any Tory MPs have the guts or gumption to threaten Cameron: they are a bunch of posers, unprinpncipled people who have submitted to being humiliated by Cameron and told told to vote for what they opposed in the election. That is the one flaw in your argument.

Yes "Beyond getting rid of Gordon Brown the Tories had little aimed at hard-working apsirational voters worried about tax, crime and opportunity. In sum, it was unclear what Cameron’s Tories were all about"; and how can Mr Nick Herbert say in sickly hypocritical tones that the NO campagin cannot possibly go at Clegg, it would make voters feel the campaign had no principles? He was happy to assassinate Brown in the election as the sole message!

Sad sad days to democracy in the UK - as the Arabs demand it, we give it away to the EU, judges, and now to alliances of political parties who will take our votes and melt them down for a debased currency clean contrary to what we voted for.. Cameron has proved utterly toxic to the national good.

4:07 pm February 21, 2011

Simon wrote :

So dinosaur tory mps bring down the coalition because they lost the referendum causing an unnecessary general election and expect to be re elected under FPTP by a grateful eletorate. If all Dave's tory critics are that thick he could outlast Mubarake!

11:39 am February 21, 2011

TomTom wrote :

"Marching off to some right wing comfort zone of ideological purity"

That's Cameron's problem. Ideological rigidity and inflexibility - dismembering the military, raising taxes significantly, selling off public assets to "friends", putting City interests above those of the public, and failing to regulate utilities or banks as they extort money from voters. Thr extreme right-wing comofort zone seems to be in Cameron-Osborne's half-baked resurrection of Heath's Selsdon Man